Two papers on “novel techniques” have been retracted with what is unfortunately a very non-novel technique: an odd notice and silence when we asked for comment.
Here’s the explanation for retraction of “A novel approach to treat residual peridevice leakage after left-atrial appendage closure,” by Wunderlich N, Wilson N, and Sievert H: Continue reading Author squabble sinks cardiology papers
Surface chemistry journal Langmuir has retracted an article on a new MRI contrast agent — but only one of the authors agreed.
According to the notice:
Continue reading Faked figure sinks paper on potential new MRI contrast agent
Retractions have arrived in the case of Peter Nijkamp, a leading Dutch economist accused of duplication and plagiarism. The Review of Economic Analysis has removed two of Nijkamp’s articles for self-plagiarism.
According to the NRC Handelsblad website (courtesy of Google translate):
The affair university economics professor Peter Nijkamp and his PhD student Karima Kourtit has escalated. The editors of the journal Review of Economic Analysis (RoEA) appears to have withdrawn because of self-plagiarism two scientific articles (reuse your own work earlier without acknowledgment), NRC Handelsblad discovered last week at the RoEA website.
The website reports that “significant parts” of the reclusive articles have appeared in other publications Nijkamp and Nijkamp / Kourtit, “without reference orderly” earlier. It involves work Nijkamp alone and work of VU economist Frank Bruinsma with Nijkamp and Kourtit.
Continue reading Retractions arrive in plagiarism scandal involving economist Nijkamp
A significant chapter of the nearly six-month saga of the STAP stem cell controversy has come to an end, with Nature running retraction notices for the two papers involved. The journal has also published an editorial about the case that’s worth a read.
The retractions for “Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency” and “Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency” both read: Continue reading STAP stem cell papers officially retracted as Nature argues peer review couldn’t have detected fatal problems
The authors of a paper showing a link between immune response and depression requested a retraction after they realized they’d merged two spreadsheets with mismatching ID codes.
Here’s the notice for “Lower CSF interleukin-6 predicts future depression in a population-based sample of older women followed for 17 years,” retracted in February 2014:
Continue reading Bad spreadsheet merge kills depression paper, quick fix resurrects it
Benjamin Barré, a genetics researcher who recently set up his own group at the University of Angers, is retracting four papers he worked on as a graduate student and postdoc.
Neil Perkins, in whose lab Barré was a postdoc, and Olivier Coqueret, in whose lab he did his PhD, tell Retraction Watch: Continue reading Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”
Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that we often cover retractions long before they appear in PubMed, the gold standard database for the life sciences literature. (In fact, we’ve taken to leaving comments on papers in PubMed Commons about retractions that haven’t been linked to their original abstracts yet.)
This can be an issue, because so many scientists use PubMed to find relevant literature. It may even contribute to the well-documented phenomenon of researchers citing retracted papers as if they hadn’t been retracted.
Until now, no one had quantified the time lag. In a new study, Evelynne Decullier, Laure Huot, and Hervé Maisonneuve — who have published on retractions before — looked at 237 retractions published in 2008. Their findings? Continue reading Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study
Rehabilitation Research and Practice has retracted a 2012 review article on stiff big toes.
The article, “Therapeutic Management of the Hallux Rigidus,” came from a group in India. According to the abstract: Continue reading “Substantial flaws” trip up big toe paper
We haven’t covered that many retractions in economics, and a 2012 paper found very few such retractions. Now, a new study based on a survey of economists tries to get a handle on how often economists commit scientific misconduct.
Here’s the abstract of “Scientific misbehavior in economics,” which appeared in Research Policy: Continue reading How often do economists commit misconduct?
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan in Seoul speaking on research integrity at the Korean Medical Association conference. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Academics go to court, hijacked journals